Obama's timetable won't permit an attack on Iran this year, so Netanyahu has a lot of groundwork to prepare.

To give the green light for a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requires evidence of a clear and present danger; the assurance of the Israel Defense Forces that it can do the job; domestic support; and also the consent of President Obama, who learned from his predecessors in the Bush family that you should only go to war in the Persian Gulf three years into your presidential term, after congressional elections. Tehran is in the crosshairs, but not before 2011.

Four-star General Kevin Chilton was in Israel last week. He is head of the U.S. Strategic Command, whose sphere of operations includes responsibility for missiles on submarines and in underground silos, as well as bombers and satellites, and computer-network warfare. If American forces were to take part in an offensive campaign against Iran, Chilton would play a significant part in preparing them for battle and in long-distance missile launches, although responsibility for the theater itself would be retained by Gen. David Petraeus, of Central Command.

Chilton, who as a teenager was a surfer in Southern California, deserves to be called Kevin Spacey - he is a veteran of both NASA and the Air Force space command, wearing the wings of an astronaut who peered down at Earth during three space voyages. He well understands the anxiety in Israel. His hosts brought him, as usual, to Yad Vashem. But in his conversation with Israel Air Force commander Ido Nehushtan and Deputy Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, Chilton didn't offer even a hint of readiness to engage in any operational coordination against their mutual rival. On the contrary: He wondered if it might somehow be possible to persuade Iran to abandon its effort to develop nuclear arms, in order to stave off an aggressive confrontation.

Chilton may have been joking when he said that each senior command echelon in the United States has an even more senior command echelon above it - with the only exception being Mrs. Barack Obama - but when it comes to vital matters of foreign affairs and defense, one should never misinterpret: The general expressed Obama's desire to delay the inevitable.

Iran is definitely in Obama's sights. He has ceased courting it, and is girding for the confrontation. But not yet. Evidently, it will not be this year. Thus, if Netanyahu wants to attack Iran, he's going to have to take into account four major indices: substantive need, operational capability, internal support and external consent. Only the confluence of extremely high scores in all four of these areas would allow him to spearhead the decision to launch an operation.

As far as substantive need goes, as of last month, Iran did not yet have nuclear arms. Public pronouncements by senior U.S. intelligence and Pentagon officials more or less corroborate the assessments in Israel: The Iranians possess 1.8 tons of low-grade enriched uranium. Quantitatively, this is more than what is needed for a single bomb, providing the material undergoes additional enrichment to the higher grade required for producing arms. American intelligence agencies estimate that Tehran has not yet made the decision to produce more of the material, after which it would be expected to accelerate progress on a wide front, so as to be able to reach "initial operational capacity" - meaning, between four and six nuclear-tipped missiles positioned in different hiding places, to make it harder for all of them to be destroyed at once in a surprise attack.

Another prerequisite for an Israeli attack, which has prevailed for years, is the state of hostility between Israel and Iran on the terror front, but it is not sufficient by itself to justify a strike. Iran has attacked Israel relentlessly through its proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and other organizations, via financing, training and direct supervision by the Revolutionary Guard and the foreign terrorist attack division of Iranian intelligence. Israel does not make do with indulgent acceptance of the Iranian attacks. If the Mossad indeed assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh of Hamas in Dubai, the motive most probably had less to do with the past than with the present - namely, with his recent role as a Hamas liaison with Iran, rather than as revenge for the murder of soldiers Ilan Saadon and Avi Sasportas two decades ago.

As for capability: Prior to making a decision on the question of launching an operation against Iran, Netanyahu would need an unequivocal statement from the defense establishment that Israel possesses the military ability to hit targets and accomplish the objectives that will be set, at least in relative terms (i.e., wreaking damage that could be reversed in a few years, as opposed to total destruction from which there could be no recovery).

The four chief advisors to the political echelon in this matter are expected to be Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, his deputy Gantz, Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin and air force commander Nehushtan. It would not be surprising if the opinions are also sought of half a dozen retired senior commanders, who in recent years have constituted a sort of control group consulted prior to critical decisions.

It is possible that a number of officers who have been involved in the Iran issue in recent years would also be asked for opinions, including former deputy chief of staff Dan Harel, Brig.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, who until recently headed the General Staff's Operations Division, and the air force's Brig.-Gen. Nimrod Sheffer, who was commander of an F-16 squadron and head of the General Staff's Planning Division.

It is reasonable to assume that at any given moment, the officers could say that the operation is feasible, but that only a certain measure of success would be attained. Or that success could be maximal, but that preparations have not yet been completed to contend with the escalation liable to occur on other fronts, including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps the West Bank.

No unity among officers

At any given moment, one can reasonably conclude that there is no unity of opinion among the officers who would be consulted, either when it comes to assessments and or recommendations. Among Gen. Nehushtan's predecessors, Eliezer Shkedi was more belligerent on the Iranian question than Dan Halutz. Seasoned defense officials are aware that special operations, such as the assassination of Mabhouh (if it was indeed carried out by Israel), do not necessarily reflect an army's or nation's capability in war. The attacker always has a momentary and fleeting advantage that does not reflect his capacity to defend and absorb. The Israel that carried out assassinations of Black September operatives in Europe in 1973, for example, was not adequately prepared for the Yom Kippur War.

As for the subject of domestic support, Netanyahu is bleeding, said one of his political rivals this week, no matter what the polls may say. The capitulation of a majority of the cabinet and of the Knesset is preventing an all-out crash, but is not sufficient for him to be able to soar. There is no reverence for the premier. Without an ample measure of political prowess, security leadership and moral authority, you do not take a country into an initiated war, a war of choice.

In terms of external consent, Gens. Chilton and Petraeus and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who met Ashkenazi in Brussels last week, have an influence on Obama, but primarily are attentive to his policy, which is mainly concerned this year with stabilizing the economy, disconnecting from Iraq, fighting more effectively in Afghanistan, and easing tension with China and Russia - partly for the purpose of tightening the ring around Iran. The American military sees Iran and North Korea as "regional aggressors" that threaten to spur a nuclear race and to undermine stability at two edges of Asia. The conflict with one of the two, with preference for Iran, is growing closer, but is still possible to prevent.

The spokesman of the Obama administration's National Security Council, Mike Hammer, last month described the transition from dialogue with Tehran to sanctions against it as the "pressure track." Last year was the year of public relations; 2010 is the year of pressure. The crushing blow that comes after the pressure will not be dealt before next year.

Petraeus, in speaking about Iraq and Afghanistan, recently referred to the difference between "Washington time" and "Baghdad, or Kabul, time": Iranian nuclearization is conducted according to Tehran time, but Obama takes a look at the Washington clock and sees in it the congressional elections in November.

During the waiting period, until 2011 arrives, Israel can intensify its intelligence capability, spruce up its military power, and it would also be wise to place at its head a political leadership that can be relied upon.

To get the latest from HaaretzFollow @HaaretzomLike us on Facebook and get articles directly in your news feed

Eli,
IF not for the US funding your wars, you would be nothings. We went to Iraq because of Israel pressure and false intel.
No more American blood for Israel. If you cannot learn to live in peace with your neighbors than so be it. That is their homeland, not people from europe just because they are Jewish.

Israel does not need the okay to do this from Goyim Americans who do not know what if anything they can do. Israel just needs to do it and get it over with. Jewish Americans are 100% behind Israel, so don't worryabout the United States. Remember what it was able to do in '73, without any green light or help from the United States.

U.S. had intelligence directly from the father of the underwear bomber, they chose to ignore it
Brennan has been on virtually all the TV networks, trying to deceive us into believing that the U.S. is intelligent about it's intelligence
Any agency knows that it will have a lot of false leads before it receives a factual one

You are wrong and on every single count stated in your comment:
a) Iran has taken US diplomatic personnel hostage from the US embassy in Tehran. Iran has attached Israel using Hizballah and Hamas, Iran is exporting Islamic extremism (with a violent agenda) to different part of the world
b) Israel was attacked in 1948 by its arab neighbors upon the UN declaring Israel's independence. Israel attacked in 1967 because Egypt, Syria and Jordan were planning to attack, in 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked Israel
c) The Goldstone report is based Hamas and antisemitic UN personal accounts -it is nothing but trash
You must be getting your facts from the mullahs in Iran!

America does not always fight for their own interest. For example, Iraq 2003, where the US and Britian was believing mossad intelligence from an informanent named "curveball." Curveball turned out to be unreliable but he took $1 million-US of CIA money. This is documented in Bob Woodward's book.
USA had/has selfish interest in Iraq also; and it's called OIL. And Saudi wanted the USA to move military bases off their peninsular; therefore we'll be keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq for a veeery looong time.
O = oil I =israel L = logistics

....er...what about the help of Allah? I think you ought to ask for that and you know how it is, Allah won't let you hurt those whom Allah has chosen and who have chosen Allah.
That's the low down from the Chosen People who Choose and are Chosen.

Before contemplating state suicide, Israel should realize that the root of most of its problems lies in what it occupies on its doorstep in Gaza and the West Bank, not in attacking imaginary foreign threats. Solve the self sought problem in achieving peaceful coexistence next door, and what is threatening will ebb away.

Actually not. That your kind frightens us is beyond doubt. That you try to keep us as eternal victims and give us a ghetto mentality is also true. But...inspite of how hard you continue to still try to instill this in us, we stopped being eternal victims or having ghetto mentalities, with the creation of Israel. We have a country, we have the weapons, we have the power and we had and have the will to have reversed that tide. It seems to me that you are projecting your own insecurities....because you well know the consequences of trying to hurt us again. Ta Ta for now.

on behalf of Israel. That you do not own up that America started the Iraq war for some nebulous reason because you are ashamed to admit that you had chosen a lunatic (Bush) for a president is understandable. Ta ta for now.

A1: Zero.
Q2: How many countries have Israel and the USA invaded in the past century?
A2: USA: ha, ha, don't even bother counting. Israel: Syria, Egypt, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Lebanon, Lebanon, plus raids in Tunisia and bombings of Iraq. Of course, some of these were 'pre-emptive' war.

Could you explain what does it mean monopoly and what a non monopoly implies practically?
1)Hizbalah has brought misery to Lebanon and won't play with fire again. Pay attention. Israel assesinated Mughbia and no response. Israel bombed Gaza and no response. Will an atomic device in Iran help Hizbalah empowerment ? If Hizbalah launches another provokation, Israel will tare down Lebanon and Iran will not lift a finger. The ayatolahs are not out of mind. Any move and the whole of Iran disappears.
Therefore Israel will behave the same way with a nuclear Iran than with a nin nuclear iran. . Will keep settling in the West bank. Gaza will be under siege, and everything will be the same.
A nuclear Iran will be more neutralized than a non nuclear Iran.

Will either Israel or Iran will use the bomb assuming both have/will have it.
Israel will not use the bomb first unless it suffers a huge damage by Iran or its allies. But, if Israel indeed has it and will use it,Iran will be an "has been" over night.
Iran has just the climate and topography to store radiation for many years to come, before anyone will be able to rebuild it.

What odd responses on this forum. Israel must survive without the risk of nukes in Lebanon or Gaza. Israel has an existential right to exist considering what happened to the jews in WWII and the viciral diatribe of Achmedinijad.
Let the missiles fly on both sides on the day after. What will remain? Not Assad and his shaky rule of power. Not the rebuilt neighborhoods of Beirut.
Life will continue as it always has, with Israel looking after its existential existence only the doomsday clock will be set back for it by 10 minutes.

Yosemite you are right. This is all a lot of navel gazing. In short, it will never happen. Not because of the US either. A strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is just too risky. Israel would be fighting a war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Forget it and one has to accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

the gas masks are being distributed. israel has the massada mentality. More jews are leaving israel then immigrating to it.
This time the Obama administration will not and can not go to war. The American people are fed-up and tired of wars.If israel want to attack Iran, let them do it by themselves and bear the wrath of the world. Iran will block the straight of hormuz and oil price will go to the roof.
Instead of talking about more wars, talk about peace in your neighbourhood. Make friends for a change not enemies.
Stop using your yad vashem thing at every occasion, it is overdone and boring.

Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, and analysis from Israel and the Middle East.
Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict,
the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.